Executive summary

Yes—calling a person a “scammer” online can amount to cyberlibel in the Philippines if the statement (1) imputes a crime, vice, or defect; (2) is published to at least one person other than the subject; (3) identifies the subject; and (4) is made with malice (which the law generally presumes). There are defenses (truth made with good motives and for justifiable ends, qualified privilege, and fair comment/opinion), but they are narrow and fact-sensitive. Penalties for cyberlibel are one degree higher than for traditional libel, and criminal liability is separate from civil damages.

Legal framework

1) Core statutes

Revised Penal Code (RPC) Articles 353–355, 360–362
- Art. 353 defines libel as a public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice, defect, or any act/condition tending to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt.
- Art. 355 penalizes libel committed by writing, printing, or similar means (which jurisprudence treats as including online writings when read together with the Cybercrime Act).
- Arts. 360–361 set venue, prosecution, and proof-of-truth rules; Art. 354 presumes malice, subject to recognized privileges.
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10175)
- Section 4(c)(4) recognizes libel committed through a computer system (“cyberlibel”).
- The penalty is one degree higher than Article 355.
- Only courts—not executive agencies—may order content restriction or takedown; warrant and due process safeguards apply.

2) Constitutional overlay

The Constitution protects speech but allows criminal libel subject to strict scrutiny in application. Philippine jurisprudence treats fair comment on matters of public interest and pure opinion as protected, while false statements of fact remain actionable.

Elements applied to the word “scammer”

Calling someone a “scammer” typically imputes the crime of estafa or fraud, which the RPC considers defamation per se. In practice:

Defamatory imputation
- “Scammer” ordinarily conveys that the person defrauds others—a concrete assertion of criminal or dishonest conduct.
- Even without naming the exact crime, the sting of the word imputes moral turpitude.
Publication
- Any online post, comment, review, tweet, story, or message visible to at least one third person is “published.”
- Private DMs to the subject alone are not publication; group chats and “friends-only” posts typically are.
Identifiability
- Using the person’s name, handle, photo, or context clues (e.g., “the owner of Store X on Y Street”) is enough.
- Even if you don’t name them, a small circle that understands who is meant can satisfy this element.
Malice
- The law presumes malice in defamatory writings.
- The accused may rebut the presumption by showing good motives and justifiable ends, or by invoking recognized privileges (below).
- If a statement falls within a privileged occasion, the complainant must prove actual malice in fact (ill will or reckless disregard of falsity).

Defenses and safe harbors

1) Truth with good motives and justifiable ends (Art. 361)

Proof of truth is necessary but not always sufficient. You must also show the statement served a legitimate purpose (e.g., warning the public against a documented fraudster, protecting your own legal rights).
Bare accusations, leaked “receipts” of dubious provenance, or edited screenshots rarely meet this standard.

2) Qualified privilege (Art. 354, jurisprudence)

Private communications in the performance of a legal, moral, or social duty—for example, a formal complaint to police, prosecutors, regulators, or a platform’s abuse team, made in good faith and limited to those with a corresponding duty—are privileged.
Fair and true reports of official proceedings, made in good faith and without comments imputing more than what the record shows, are privileged.
Privilege is lost by malice (e.g., embellishment, sensationalism, or sharing beyond the circle of duty).

Posting “scammer” publicly on Facebook, TikTok, or X is not a protected “private communication”; it usually defeats the privilege by broadcasting beyond those with a duty to act.

3) Fair comment and opinion

Opinion is protected if it: (a) is based on stated or known facts, and (b) is a value judgment rather than a new assertion of fact.
Saying “In my opinion, they’re a scammer” does not automatically immunize you if the context implies undisclosed defamatory facts.
Safer phrasing: describe verifiable conduct (“kept my money and never delivered after two demands; here are the dated receipts and messages”) and let readers draw conclusions.

4) Public officials and public figures

Speech on official conduct or matters of public interest enjoys wider latitude; however, knowingly false statements or those made with reckless disregard for truth remain actionable.
For private individuals, courts tend to be stricter in protecting reputation.

Procedural and liability issues

1) Who can be liable online?

Original authors/posters: may be criminally liable for cyberlibel.
Liking or mere sharing: as a rule, mere reactions without original defamatory content have not been treated as criminal libel; liability turns on whether you authored or affirmatively republished defamatory matter with your own imputation.
Admins/moderators: potential exposure arises if they author, approve, or curate defamatory content; passive hosting typically points to platform, not user, responsibilities.
Anonymity is not a shield; law enforcement may seek subpoenas/warrants for subscriber/traffic data.

2) Venue and jurisdiction

Libel cases are typically filed where the offended party resided at the time of publication or where the libel was first published. For online posts, courts analogize “first publication” to initial upload; the complainant’s residence rule remains important.

3) Prescription (statute of limitations)

Traditional libel prescribes in one year from publication.
Cyberlibel’s exact prescriptive period has been the subject of legal debate because of the special law and penalty structure; courts have treated timeliness as a serious, fact-driven issue. Parties should verify the current controlling rule before filing or moving to quash.

4) Multiple counts and republication

Each distinct post by the original author can be a separate offense.
Editing, re-posting, or migrating the same content later may constitute republication, potentially restarting certain clocks; passive continued availability without new acts is treated differently from active re-upping.

5) Criminal vs. civil liability

A single online statement can trigger:
- Criminal prosecution for cyberlibel (public offense, proof beyond reasonable doubt).
- Civil action for damages (preponderance of evidence), including moral, exemplary, and actual damages, and injunctions in appropriate cases.

Practical guidance for individuals and organizations

Before you post “scammer”

Gather verifiable facts: contracts, invoices, payment proofs, demand letters, delivery logs, full (unredacted) message threads with timestamps.
Use precise, factual language: “failed to deliver after payment despite two written demands dated X/Y” is safer than labels.
Report to proper channels: law enforcement, regulatory bodies (e.g., DTI, SEC for investment schemes), platforms’ fraud and IP teams, payment providers—privileged avenues when kept to those with a duty to act.
Mind identifiability: avoid naming or pointing if facts are still under verification.
Avoid sensational hashtags that broaden publication unnecessarily.

If you’ve been called a “scammer”

Preserve evidence: screenshots with URLs, date/time, platform headers, and archive links.
Document harm: lost clients, cancellations, mental anguish (medical/psychological notes), and mitigation steps you took.
Send a measured demand letter demanding takedown/correction; consider right of reply.
Assess forum and timing carefully (venue, prescription, and choice of criminal/civil remedies).

For brands, sellers, and reviewers

Reviews: stick to verifiable experiences; separate facts from opinions.
Influencers and affiliates: vet claims; avoid categorical criminal labels.
Community moderators: adopt report-first workflows (escalate to platforms/authorities), and maintain clear takedown and appeal processes.

Frequently asked questions

Is adding “allegedly” enough? No. Courts look at substance and context, not magic words.

What if I honestly believed it? Honest belief, without reasonable basis, does not defeat malice when the law presumes it. Good-faith reliance on credible documentation matters.

Can I be sued if I don’t name them? Yes, if the person is reasonably identifiable to a segment of readers.

Is a private group chat safe? Publication occurs if a third person reads it. Smaller, purpose-bound groups may support qualified privilege, but forwarding outside that circle undermines it.

Are platforms liable? Platform liability involves separate statutory and regulatory regimes; users should not assume platforms will be held liable in place of individual authors.

Checklist: lower-risk alternatives to “scammer”

Describe specific conduct instead of labels: “accepted ₱__, promised delivery by [date], no item received after demands.”
State what you did next: “Filed a complaint with [agency/platform] on [date], reference no. __.”
Invite a response window (“We’ll update this post if we receive proof of refund/delivery by [date].”).
Limit audience to those who need to know (authorities, dispute-resolution bodies, platform channels).
Keep complete records; redact only when safe to do so.

Key takeaways

Online accusations of “scammer” often check every box for cyberlibel.
The safest route is to report through privileged channels and to speak fact-first, label-last (or not at all) in public posts.
Truth alone is not enough; Philippine law also asks whether you acted with good motives and justifiable ends.
Nuances on venue, prescription, and republication can make or break a case; outcomes are highly fact-specific.

This article provides general information in the Philippine context and is not a substitute for advice from counsel on your specific facts.